The nexus of displacement and urbanisation: assessing the asset
vulnerability and livelihood strategies of urban refugees in Dar es
Salaam, Tanzania.
Aisling O’Loghlen
© by Aisling O’Loghlen
Institute for Social Policy, Housing, Environment and Real Estate (I-SPHERE)
School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society (EGIS)
Heriot–Watt University, Riccarton, Edinburgh EH14 4AS
T: +44 (0) 131 451 4542
E: [email protected]
Paper presented at the Sheffield Methods Institute Conference on “Migrants in the City: New Dynamics of
Migration in Urban Settings” Sheffield 12 – 13 October 2015
1
Abstract
The nexus between rapid urbanisation and forced migration has in recent years manifested in a
growing urban refugee phenomenon. The need for integrating the greater mobility of displaced
populations with urban development is a humanitarian challenge as governments struggle to
develop coherent policies to adequately meet the needs of both indigenous and refugee populations
in urban areas. Understanding these needs and the livelihood strategies adopted by the refugee
population are therefore of great importance. This paper will specifically examine the livelihood
strategies and asset vulnerability of the urban refugees of Dar es Salaam through Moser’s (1998)
asset vulnerability framework, while expanding on the concept of the Right to the City as a form of
political asset, and one which is crucial for the creation of sustainable livelihoods for these forced
migrants.
Key Words:
Urban, refugees, Right to the City, Asset Vulnerability, Dar es Salaam, Livelihoods
Introduction
The Great Lakes crises of the 1990s had many repercussions for the populations of East African
states. Hundreds of thousands were displaced, both internally and as refugees (UNHCR, 2015). In the
intervening period many refugees have returned to their countries of origin, however a considerable
number have also settled permanently in other countries, including Tanzania, historically one of the
most generous countries for refugee hosting in Africa (Milner, 2009). With the resurgence in
violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi in recent times, a new wave of forced
migrants are making their way across borders (UNHCR, 2015b), and to Tanzania’s largest city Dar es
Salaam.
This paper examines the coping mechanisms which these urban refugees use to develop sustainable
livelihoods strategies through the accumulation of assets, and to protect against vulnerability. Their
assets are compared to the Tanzanian population which they live adjacent to in the informal
settlements of Dar es Salaam – the low income indigenous group with whom they compete with for
resources. The comparison is intended to give a snapshot of the relative poverty experienced by the
refugees, and to consider their position within the wider context of vulnerable populations; as
Jacobsen (2006) notes, urban refugees are “subsets of two larger populations; other foreign born
migrants, and, because they live amongst them and share their challenges, they are also a subset of
the national urban poor” (pg 276).
The research for this paper was conducted over the course of 15 months (March 2014 – June 2015)
in three different locations across Dar es Salaam. The locations of these sites will not be disclosed in
order to protect the whereabouts of refugees living in the city. 90 interviews and 2 focus groups
were conducted in total; 30 interviews with refugees1, 30 with Tanzanian urban slum dwellers and
30 with various UNHCR, UN HABITAT, NGO, local government and academic staff. Interviews were
conducted in Kiswahili, French, Kibembe and Lingala. Due to the clandestine nature of many
refugees’ lives, it would have been extremely difficult to gain access to them without working in
partnership with local organisations. So too it would have proved challenging to enter the informal
1
The participants interviewed are referred to as ‘refugees’ throughout the paper, however not all are refugees as defined by 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Some are officially recognised refugees which left the camps, some applied for refugee
status and were rejected, and some have never been asylum seekers. However all participants reported having fled violence in their home
country and so for the purposes of this discussion will be referred to as refugees throughout the paper.
2
settlements unaccompanied by a local guide. Therefore, the researcher collaborated with two
organisations to complete the fieldwork; Asylum Access Tanzania (AATZ), an NGO which provides
free legal aid to refugees, and the Centre for Community Initiatives (CCI), a Tanzanian NGO which
has a strong presence in the slum settlements of Dar es Salaam, managing capacity building and
housing projects.
Respondents for both the refugee and Tanzanian groups were offered a 25,000 TZH (approximately
$15 USD) stipend in recognition of the time taken away from their work. As the refugee participants
were chosen from the list of Asylum Access clientele, it is likely that there exists a slight bias in the
selection of participants towards more proactive refugees which contacted the organisation. The
sample size for both groups is relatively small, and so the representativeness of the data to the wider
refugee and Tanzanian urban slum populations as a whole may not be generalizable, nevertheless
certain trends can be acknowledged and give a partial snapshot of the needs of both communities.
Livelihoods and the Asset Vulnerability Framework
An asset is defined as a “stock of financial, human, natural or social resources that can be acquired,
developed, improved and transferred across generations, it generates flows or consumption, as well
as additional stock” (Ford, 2004). The five main capital assets are indicated in Fig 1 below, however
other assets exist including aspirational (Appadurai, 2004) as well as political and civic capital in
addition to human rights (Moser and Norton, 2001). The five main assets can be separated into
tangible assets – which comprise natural physical and financial assets, and intangible assets – social
and human capital (Arun et. al, 2014). However Mitlin (2003) notes that natural capital is not quite
as key as the others in developing livelihoods.
The livelihoods approach is one which has become popular within development and humanitarian
circles, and Moser’s asset vulnerability framework “represents a livelihoods approach to
systematically analysing the relationships between the assets and vulnerabilities relevant to the
urban poor in the Global South” (Parizeau, 2015 pg 162). It is also important to clarify from the
outset what is meant by the term ‘asset vulnerability’ as there exists some confusion around the
terms livelihoods, asset accumulation and social protection in academic discourse. The asset
vulnerability framework which the paper focuses on “emphasises the relationship between assets,
risks and vulnerability. At the operational level, this relationship is at the core of social protection
policy and programs” (Moser, 2006 pg 9). Asset accumulation policy however, is “the associated
asset-based operational approach that focuses directly on creating opportunities for the poor to
accumulate and consolidate their assets in a sustainable way” (Moser, 2007 pg 90).
Much work has already been completed on livelihoods strategies which have been adopted by the
urban poor, however this is seldom used in the context of urban refugee populations, with a few
exceptions (Metcalfe et.al, 2011; Pantuliano et. al, 2012; Haysom, 2013;). This group has a unique
set of vulnerabilities and arguably faces greater challenges than aboriginal populations in
accumulating assets, and so a more complete understanding of the complexities regarding their
livelihoods may help develop better programmes to meet their needs. In this paper I will focus on
the five main assets as indicated by Moser (1998), but also conceptualise further the political and
civic assets which urban refugees aspire to accumulate, and which are necessary for them to prosper
– rights, in this case the Right to the City. The paper therefore ambitiously attempts to develop
linkages between these areas; asset vulnerability, livelihoods, and the Right to the City.
3
Definition of the most important capital assets for individuals, households and communities
Physical capital: the stock plan, equipment, infrastructure and other productive resources owned
by individuals, the business sector or the country itself.
Financial capital: the financial resources available to people (savings, supplies of credit).
Human capital: investments in education, health and nutrition of individuals. Labour is linked to
investments in human capital; health status influences people’s capacity to work, and skill and
education determine the return from their labour.
Social capital: an intangible asset, defined as the rules, norms obligations, reciprocity and trust
embedded in social relations, social structures, and societies’ institutional arrangements. It is
embedded at the micro-institutional level (communities and households) as well as in the rules
and regulations governing formalized institutions in the marketplace, political system and civil
society.
Natural capital: the stock of environmentally provided assets such as soil, atmosphere, forests,
minerals, waste and wetlands. In rural communities land is a critical productive asset for the
poor; in urban areas, and for shelter is also a critical productive asset.
Figure 1: Most important Capital Assets. Source: Moser (1998)
Background to Urban Displacement
Traditionally UNHCR has been the main organisation which has provided humanitarian assistance to
refugees. The encampment policy for refugees across all sub – Saharan African countries has meant
that over the last twenty years especially, numerous camps have mushroomed across the continent,
springing up as a consequence of the many conflicts in the region. When originally established, it
was not envisioned that these camps would become the permanent structures that they have
developed into, with thousands of children being born inside the camps and never knowing any
other life. However this trend is resulting in more and more refugees shunning camp life and seeking
better opportunities in cities, even while foregoing assistance from UNHCR, which provides only a
limited service in some urban areas to a small number of legal refugees. Governments too are often
loathe to allow organisations such as UNHCR to operate in urban areas, believing this will only draw
more refugees into the city (Pavanello et. al., 2010).
The challenges for refugees and IDPs arriving in new cities often without existing social networks is
enormous, and many end up living in the informal settlements alongside the established urban poor
(Crisp et. al., 2012). Surveys conducted in various cities to date (such as the Sanctuary in the City
Series conducted by the Overseas Development Institute) have uncovered that IDPs and non-IDPs
encounter many of the same problems due to lack of services and adequate infrastructure. Although
these surveys were specifically for IDPs rather than refugees, one could extrapolate from this data
that they face similar problems. However, what Davies and Jacobsen note is that urban IDPs were
found to be “poorer, at a great disadvantage and experiencing more insecurity than their non IDP
neighbours” (2010 pg 13). Therefore this growing urban population of refugees and IDPs are often
4
hidden, subversive, hoping to avoid detection and so the urban space is a good opportunity for them
to melt into the background and begin working on building a new life. However, the challenge for
UNHCR to provide assistance in these difficult circumstances is proving considerable.
Over the years UNHCR has attempted to tackle the urban refugee issue through the introduction of
several policy documents (UNHCR, 1997; UNHCR, 2009a; UNHCR, 2009b; UNHCR, 2011; UNHCR
2012). The most recent urban refugee policy document (2009) acknowledges that issues have
existed in the past regarding a fraught relationship in some instances between UNHCR staff and
refugees, paragraph 84 noting that “UNHCR’s relationship with refugees in urban areas has on
occasion been a tense one, characterised by a degree of mutual suspicion” (UNHCR, 2009 pg 14).
Edwards notes the “elitist attitudes of some staff” (2010 pg 49), and her thoughts overall on the
document are quite critical, highlighting a continuing bias towards camp based support and overall
vagueness of how its objectives will be achieved (Edwards, 2010).
It raises fundamental questions about the efficacy of the organisation in urban areas, and whether
some of the problems it has encountered are endogenous to UNHCR rather than outside influences.
The fact that in thousands of cases, it is UNHCR rather than a state government which will decide
whether someone is granted or denied refugee status bestows a considerable amount of power.
Kibreab (2007) highlights that it is the strong preference of governments to keep refugees in remote
parts of the country, forcing them to remain separate from the host society as well as allowing the
responsibility of their care to fall firmly on the shoulders of UNHCR. It is a case of ‘out of sight out of
mind’ to a certain extent, noting that refugees are seen as “a factor that exacerbates the urban
condition” (pg 29).
Integrating Livelihood and Rights Approaches
Livelihoods and asset – based approaches tend to focus attention on the dynamics of wellbeing at
the household level, while rights - based approaches often focus at the more macro, institutional
scale. In essence the difference lies in that in terms of social protection; at the household level risk is
a danger, while at the operation level in terms asset accumulation policy, risk is an opportunity
(Moser, 2007). However, in recent years numerous academics have begun to recognise that that this
dichotomy is not beneficial to examining the needs of low income populations, and that in reality
there is not a clear cut separation between the two approaches; they are complementary and both
must be considered when developing effective politics in addressing the needs of vulnerable groups.
As Conway et. al (2002) notes, rights analysis can “provide insights into the distribution of power”,
while asset vulnerability frameworks can highlight areas where this power is lacking at the
household level. The importance of rights which can be realised cannot be understated, indeed “the
capacity to make claim effectively is a significant livelihood capability for most people” (Moser and
Norton, 2001 pg 40). Cook (2007) contends that vulnerability includes such issues as physical
insecurity, exposure to violence and discrimination, which are all forms of erosion of assets; in this
case assets which are political or rights - based in nature. Therefore the linkages and connections
between house, institution and state levels are crucial to understand.
The ability of vulnerable populations to change this dynamic depends in large part on their ability to
accumulate another asset – the development of networks and social movements. The establishment
of rights by the state is not enough as this does not automatically translate into rights being realised.
5
Indeed as shown in Figure 2 and noted by Arun et. al. (2013) the ability to accumulate assets
“depends on a range of factors and circumstances” (pg 281). This framework of rights must exist
alongside a space where populations can accumulate assets to be allowed to assert their rights, and
have them upheld. If these two do not exist in tandem, then it is likely that these populations will
remain vulnerable. As Moser and Norton (2001) note, “the underlying logic is that a rights /
livelihoods perspective enhances social justice, through the application of non – discrimination and
emphasis on ‘equitable accountability’ of the state to all citizens” (pg ix). It is important to see rights
as one mechanism to address the imbalance of power which exists to prevent vulnerable people
from acquiring or accumulating assets (Moser and Norton, 2001). From a broader perspective it can
act a mechanism to move vertically the power between micro and macro levels, to gain access to
important institutions, as rights do not always equate to power - “Rights seek to contain the flow of
power like bottleneck….but power leaks out, and flows around rights” (Wilson, 1991 pg 17).
In the following analysis I present the vulnerabilities and assets that influence the urban refugee
population and Tanzanian slum dwellers of Dar es Salaam, and outline the interplay between the
two groups. Many of the assets available to both groups are precarious in nature and so such
livelihood strategies are arguably not sustainable in the longer term. The case study is intended to
demonstrate the complex nexus between livelihoods, rights, urbanisation and displacement within
the context of a sub – Saharan African city.
People
Livelihood
Capabilities
A
Living
Stores and
Resources
Claims and
Access
Figure 2. Components and Flows in a Livelihood. Source: Chambers and Conway, 1991 pg 7
Vulnerability context of the urban refugee population in Dar es Salaam
(a) Overview of the vulnerability context of urban refugees
The refugees reside in informal settlements throughout the city, which make up to 80% of the
residential urban area. The vast majority of Dar es Salaam remains informal despite continuing
efforts from the government to reduce the level of slums. The combination of an increase in
population nationally - 2.9% since the last census, with an increase of 5.6% in Dar es Salaam (URT,
6
2013), in addition to high levels of migration from rural areas of Tanzania has resulted in the rapid
growth of the urban area and the inability of the government to effectively provide services for the
population influx.
It is unknown the exact number of refugees currently residing in the city. A survey was recently
undertaken by the Tanganyika Christian Refugee Society (TCRS) commissioned by the Ministry of
Home Affairs (MHA) to determine the level of urban refugees nationwide, however the results of
this survey have not yet been released to the public. Yet it is estimated that there at least 10,000
refugees residing in Dar es Salaam (USDS, 2012), though the actual number is likely to be
considerably higher. The continuing tensions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and recent
political unrest in Burundi also indicate that this trend seems set to continue for the foreseeable
future.
Officially all refugees are required to reside in camps in Western Tanzania, only one of which now
remains open, Nyarugusu camp. A very small number are given permits to live in other areas,
including Dar es Salaam, usually for medical reasons or due to security and protection concerns
(AATZ, 2011). Up until recently the Government of Tanzania had not publicly acknowledged the
existence of the considerable number of refugees in Dar es Salaam; and in an interview with UNHCR
staff they confirmed that the number of officially registered refugees residing in the city at the time
totalled less than 100. As the refugee population has not caused any major disturbances with the
local inhabitants, it appears that the Government has not had any reason to pursue more stringent
action against them. However the recent survey undertaken suggests a change in Government
policy in the coming years as indicated by a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) official:
“Its simply because over the years we were worried about the security, to be honest the security
issue was the over ridding factor. Because of the huge numbers. I mean it is true it could act as a pull
factor. But now that we know that we have many refugees we want to document them, and legalise
the stay, legalise those who have reasons to justify to stay in any of our cities”. O17, MHA official.
(b) Low income work and precarious earnings (vulnerabilities of labour)
Urban refugees regularly find work on the streets of Dar es Salaam, as food sellers, statue carvers
and hairdressers. Most go to work every day, but in the case of the statue carvers in particular
income is very precarious. As can be seen in Figure 3 below, the majority of urban refugees survive
on less than 300,000TZS (approx. $138 USD) per month. Almost 27% of the group survive on less
than 60,000TZS (approx. $28 USD) and are in some cases the only breadwinner in the family. These
incomes very often provided for more than one adult in the households, and so the incidence of
poverty is even higher than shown in Figure 3. What is most significant in the case of income level is
that while the Tanzanian inhabitants of informal settlements are also poor by Tanzanian standards,
relatively speaking they are less vulnerable to the extreme depravation which the refugee
population experiences: only one Tanzanian respondent interviewed earned 60,000TZS or less per
month.
7
Monthly Income Level
No. of respondents
Current rate of exchange: 1,000 TZS = $0.46 USD
Refugee
30
Tanzanian
25
20
15
10
5
0
0-20,000
20,000 60,000
60,000 100,000
100,000 150,000
150,000 300,000
> 300,000
Income Bracket (TZS)
Figure 3 – Monthly income level of both groups
As alluded to above informal work is very inconsistent and so the figures shown are an average for
what the refugees most likely earned in the course of a month; it is not a given that they earn the
same amount each month. Variations in income depended on several factors from health (there is
no sick pay in the informal sector), to the weather, as Dar es Salaam is subject to severe flooding and
notoriously difficult to navigate during the rainy season.
(c) Health issues (vulnerabilities of human capital)
In the interviews conducted, a large proportion of refugees reported having some health problems
(Figure 4). It is acknowledged within the literature on livelihoods that ill–health and health–related
expenses are the primary cause of descending into poverty (Moser, 2007). Malaria is clearly the
most serious concern; however other significant issues present included urinary tract infections
(U.T.I), typhoid and stomach aches which can all be attributed to unsanitary living conditions and
lack of access to clean water. The cost of regular visits to hospitals or pharmacies for the treatment
of malaria in particular proved prohibitive for many respondents (the minimum cost is usually at
least 20,000TZH for hospital visits). The majority of interviewees only used a net as protection
against malaria and it is clear that this has not been effective in preventing the spread of the
disease. Tanzania currently has a health system where both public and private hospitals are
available, however, one needs to be a Tanzanian national in order to access the public health
centres at a low cost; if you are found to be foreigner you may be charged double or triple the price
of citizens (R25 Interview). Public hospitals can also be located some distance away from the
informal settlements, and require costly and arduous travel journeys on the local dala dalas
(minibus) transport system. As Chambers (1995) notes, the importance of a strong, healthy body is
underestimated by those in developed countries who often rely more on their brains than bodies to
generate income, but sickness or disability can greatly hamper the ability of low – income people to
get out of poverty, and so this is a crucial asset for the refugee population to possess.
8
It is also important to note that with regard to some diseases, the refugees appeared slightly better
off that their Tanzanian counterparts in the results, for example in the instance of contracting T.B.
and typhoid, although it is salient to keep in mind the relatively small interview sample. Other
illnesses which were not as common but were also mentioned by a small number of respondents
included high blood pressure and eye – related issues. While interviewees were asked if they had
contracted AIDS/HIV, none gave positive answers, although given the current rate of infection in
Tanzania (5.3% as of 2014) (World Bank, 2015) it is possible that some may have contracted the
disease but due to the stigma surrounding it chose not to disclose that information.
No. of respondents
Health Issues
30
25
Refugee
Tanzanian
20
15
10
5
0
Type of Illness
Figure 4 – Health Issues Experience by Refugees and Tanzanians
There is also a caveat regarding the detection of malaria as the disease has been known to be
misdiagnosed in sub – Saharan African countries from time to time, and so the actual incidence of
malaria may be somewhat lower. However, even if the real number of cases of malaria are not this
severe (Chandler et. al, 2008), it nonetheless presents a significant problem for both populations.
Currently the National Malarial Control Program (NMCP) estimates that 60,000-80,000 malaria
deaths occur annually on mainland Tanzania among all age groups (USAID, 2014). Malaria
prevention within the study indicated that just 12.5% of the refugee cohort using an insecticide
treated net (ITN), while 54% used nets which were not treated, and 16.6% used no prevention
methods at all.
(d) Stigma, discrimination and conflict (vulnerabilities of social and human capital)
Discrimination and prejudice against urban refugees is widespread in the Global South (Pantaulino
et. al, 2012) and one of the reasons that these populations go to such extremes to hide their true
identities in the urban space. In addition to the xenophobia that often accompanies having a
different appearance, language or religion to the native population, the urban refugee cohort is also
in a continuous battle for already scare resources with their Tanzanian counterparts. Many of the
respondents had reported repeated issues with police where they were arrested (Figure 5) and
were kept incarcerated until they paid substantial bribes (usually between 50,000TZH –
150,000TZH), often to have the process repeated several weeks later. Several had also experienced
9
conflict associated with their living arrangements (either through fights with neighbours or
landlords). As outsiders they are eschewed, and daily interactions with Tanzanians became
increasingly difficult if their identities are known. A refugee described how, when waiting in line to
take her turn drawing water at a local well she often faced discrimination, and was reminded that
she had no right to be there:
“They will tell you ‘step aside you are a refugee. We need citizens to get the water first. You are just
coming here’ – sometimes they can just be rude at you because you are just a refugee, so you step
aside”. R27, Refugee interview.
Number of Times Refugees Arrested
10%
4%
Never
10%
Once
Twice
21%
55%
Three
Four
Figure 5 – Number of times refugees arrested
50% of refugees interviewed stated that they had to pay a bribe of some type since arriving in Dar
es Salaam, whether to police officials or neighbours who had threatened to report them to
immigration authorities. As the quote above highlights, the level of social exclusion of the refugee
population can be quite visceral and in addition to the psychological and emotional impacts of living
with this type of discrimination on a daily basis, it highlights the linkages between the assets of
refugees at both household and state level: they lack the political capital to fight for their right to
something as basic as water, and this is compounded at the local level by the native population
which they are seen to compete with. Without addressing the root causes at both levels, the issues
will not be adequately resolved.
Social Capital
(a) Conceptualising social capital
Social capital, often cited as an “intangible asset” (Moser, 2007) requires defining in order to discuss
the various assets which people may accumulate through the course of their life cycle. Moser (1998)
defines social capital as “reciprocity within communities and between households based on trust
deriving from social ties” (pg 4). It is a key asset to low income groups (Mitlin, 2003; Jacobsen,
2006), in particular vulnerable groups such as urban refugees where increased security from
support networks may at least partly offset having less access to financial capital. It is also
particularly important in terms of health benefits: many of the refugees interviewed had suffered
devastating traumatic instances such as witnessing the death of loved ones, and sexual assaults. The
vast majority had received no counselling of any description, and having to begin their lives again in
10
a foreign country, often alone is extremely challenging. Having a support network of some sort
available could be of great benefit in such instances, in particular for those refugees who were
facing regular occurrences of xenophobia and racism in Dar es Salaam. It is important to note that in
other studies such as Arun et. al. (2013) social capital in the form of networks were the most
important form of asset emerge from the research findings. Social capital is also important because
as Conway et. al (2002) notes without some form of community organisation and social
mobilisation, the poor will most likely neither to have rights or be able to realise them through their
interactions with the government or other institutions.
(b) Social capital and vulnerabilities
For the refugees fleeing to Dar es Salaam, 52% did not know anyone on arrival in the city. Due to the
illegal status of many of the group, some chose to purposely not expand their networks too widely,
in case of trouble with the authorities (see quote below). However, 67% stated that everyone in
their area knew they were a refugee. It is interesting to note that the younger cohort of the
respondents were more open to mix with their Tanzanian counterparts, and when asked if they
were friends with Tanzanians they were more likely to say yes, while 26% of the cohort stated that
they had no Tanzanian friends. One of the refugees described how they tried to reduce contact in
order to avoid detection –
So I’m really fearful of totally integrating with them or getting used to them because if I start with
my Swahili, I don’t have good Swahili, they would identify who I am. So what I normally do, my
friends come from the church in [Location 1], and my ethnicity. R13, Interview
Tanzanian Respondents view of Refugees
No issue with them
13%
4%
39%
No problem as long as they are
not criminals
Are not welcome
26%
18%
Are welcome if they have legal
papers
Undisclosed
Figure 6. Tanzanian respondents views of refugees
On discussing the topic of refugees with the Tanzanian group, it is interesting to note that only 26%
(Figure 6) stated categorically that refugees were not welcome in the city, which counters some of
the experiences of the refugee population themselves. However, it is also salient that only 6%
stated they knew a refugee, but as discussed previously the true figure may be higher as refugees
often don’t disclose their true nationality. What this finding suggests is that there is a genuine
willingness and a well of social capital on the part of a large proportion of the Tanzanian population
to welcome refugees, and exploiting this capital will be crucial to the development of coherent
refugee policies and programmes in areas such as Dar es Salaam. The fact the most Tanzanians have
no problem with refugees suggest that with the help of well – though out programmes, the forced
11
migrants could be integrated with the indigenous population relatively easily.
Human Capital
(a) Education
Human capital is a vital part of the assets portfolio of vulnerable groups for one reason in particular
– it is required to make use of all other types of assets (DFID, 1999). The development of human
capital amongst the urban refugee population is restricted due to several reasons: firstly, the
education system in Tanzania, while technically free throughout primary school, in reality places a
considerable financial burden on households through daily ‘contributions’. These can be required
for anything from sitting an exam to providing school security, ranging from a few hundred TZS to
several thousand. This immediately presents a barrier to some children attending primary school
fulltime. In addition, should students fail their final exams in primary school during Standard 7, they
will not be allowed to proceed to public secondary level education. The only way they can continue
their education if they fail primary level exams is to pay fees to attend a privately run secondary
school, which can range from anywhere between 20,000 TZS – 2 million TZS per year.
School Attendance
No. of respondents
30
Refugee
25
Tanzanian
20
15
10
5
0
Full time
When
money is
available
Not
attending
due to cost
Too young
Dropped
out
Attending
nursery
school
Not
applicable
Type of Attendance
Figure 7 – School Attendance
It is evident from the research conducted that removing children from school (Figure 7) is often
adopted as a coping mechanism when income streams decline or are temporarily stopped. In this
instance the children’s human capital is being traded off for financial capital (Parizeau, 2015), to
their detriment in the longer term. However, it is not so clear cut a choice, as indicated by one
refugee:
Interviewer: So why did you take them (the children) out of school?
Interviewee: Well they can eat or they can go to school but I can’t afford both, so what should I do?
There are several reasons for the poor level of attendance at school and these include, as attested to
by Arun et. al. (2013) expenses towards book and uniforms, distance to school, cost of transport,
12
lack of awareness amongst parents and concurrently the lack of role models to demonstrate the
benefits from education. From the current school attendance of the refugee children one can
suppose that they will achieve a lower educational attainment than the Tanzanian group. This
phenomenon is also evidence of the erosion of assets which their parents had accumulated through
their own education in their respective countries of origin (Figure 8), as they are better educated
than their Tanzanian counterparts. However, from the data collected it appears unlikely that the
children of refugees will achieve the level of education that many of their parents possess. Social
mobility through inter–generational asset accumulation is decisively hampered due to the
displacement of the populations from their home areas. This is supported by Moser (1998) whose
research indicates that households who chose to keep children in school were financially more
limited but in the long term less vulnerable as they reduced their vulnerability through the
accumulation of human capital.
In addition, the relationship between education level, type of employment and income level of the
refugee population all indicate that in spite of the human capital assets which they possess, their
lack of political capital and rights in Tanzania mean that the potential of these assets are not
realised, and many are forced to work in very low paying, precarious jobs for which they are over qualified. It is not just the financial implications of this under-skilling that is detrimental to the
livelihoods of the refugees, the psychological effect also increases their torpor significantly –
Back in my own country I was well off and I was able to provide, but now here is a fast, suffering and
I feel like even my brain is dying (R21, Interview)
No. of repondents
Education Level
30
Refugee
Tanzanian
25
20
15
10
5
0
Education Level
Figure 8. – Education levels of Refugees and Tanzanians
b) Nutrition and Access to Clean Water
Adequate nutrition is linked to several other assets, such as the ability to provide labour and also the
increase in human capital through education. Lack of adequate nutrition is therefore a key
vulnerability and one which is experienced regularly as can be seen in Figure 9 where just over 46%
of the refugee population survive on one meal per day. Food is cited by 47% of the refugee
population and 63% of the Tanzanian population as the most expensive item per month. So clearly it
is critical cost for both groups.
13
In addition to food insecurity, water is also an issue with the refugee population in particular lack of
consistent access to clean water. Many respondents cited drinking salt water as a coping mechanism
when they were required to cut back on spending – 33% of refuges interviewed drank only salt
water, while no Tanzanian respondents drank salt water solely, although 16% of Tanzanians did
drink a mixture of both fresh and salt water. The effects of this included serious health issues
including typhoid, stomach aches, diarrhoea, and skin rashes. However refugees viewed it as a
rational choice as in most cases salt water is only 50% the cost of fresh water. Even in cases where
the respondents did purchase fresh water, this was often from street vendors who purported to be
selling clean water when in fact the water was contaminated. This is because the public water
service available through Dar es Salaam Water and Sewage Corporation (DAWASCO) is notoriously
unreliable, with public taps generally supplying water only one day per week, so residents of
informal settlements have no choice but to supplement their water supply by alternative means.
Number of Meals per Day
No. of respondents
30
Refugee
25
Tanzanian
20
15
10
5
0
One Meal
Two Meals
Three Meals
Undisclosed
Number of meals
Figure 9. – Number of meals consumed by Refugee and Tanzanian groups per day.
Physical Capital
a) Housing
Housing is a crucial asset for the urban refugee population for several reasons: Firstly, refugees are
not allowed to own property in Tanzania, so even if the group had the means to purchase property,
(which the vast majority do not), they would not be legally allowed to do so. This is important
because as noted by Moser (2007 pg 41), “housing is the first – priority asset, and while it does not
necessarily get households out of poverty, adequate housing is generally a necessary precondition
for the accumulation of other assets”. Therefore the prevention of the refugee population in
acquiring this asset is a serious obstacle to them pulling themselves out of poverty. Indeed Moser
(1998) purports that it is the most critical of all assets “the removal of tenure – insecurity related
obstacles that prevent or constrain households from using their housing effectively as a productive
asset is possibly the single most critical poverty intervention” (pg 11).
In addition, the lack of secure housing creates a host of other problems for the refugees: it results in
14
regular moving of place due to rent increases, poor environmental condition or disagreements with
landlords. It also means less ability to earn income as they are not able to rent out rooms like their
Tanzanian neighbours, and reduces their abilities to get loans considerably. The housing quality of
many of the respondents was very poor; 23% had no access to electricity and 60% of families lived
in one room (Figure 10). Only 13% of the refugee population had their own toilets, in comparison to
23% of the Tanzanians, and 50% of the refugee respondents were sharing toilets with 5 or more
other families, which could be in excess of 30 people as the average household in Tanzania is
currently 4.8 persons (UNFPA, 2015).
It is also important to consider the knock on effect of not having access to proper housing as Arun et
al. (2013) notes that this further stunts households’ ability to exploit the potential of this physical
asset, such as through income diversification strategies for example using the space for setting up a
small business. Indeed it is a key factor in developing resilience against shocks, as it is “23% less
likely for a household that owns any form of physical asset to experience an adverse shock than for
a non – ownership house” (Arun et. al, 2013 pg 294). In addition, the lack of toilet facilities causes
health problems including the instances of urinary tract infections (U.T.I.) which again creates a
financial burden, particularly on female members of the household if they are unable to work due to
contracting the infection.
Number of Rooms Rented by Refugee Families
No. of respondents
30
25
18
20
15
10
10
2
5
0
One Room
Two Rooms
Three Rooms
Figure 10. – Number of Rooms Rented by Refugee Families
Financial Capital
(a) Access to Credit
Urban refugees have very limited access to what is termed as ‘productive assets’ or to any type of
formal financial institutions, from national banks to small scale microfinance groups (Figure 11). For
example, only 20% of the refugees interviewed had a bank account, in comparison to 40% of their
Tanzanian counterparts. In addition, 62% of the refugee population stated that they were unable to
save any money, in comparison to 46% of the Tanzanian cohort. Low–income people are notoriously
risk averse and generally view access to credit as a risk rather an opportunity and as noted by
Chambers (1995) providing loans to people to acquire assets can increase vulnerability as the loss of
the asset can result in them being worse off than before.
15
Access to Credit
Source of credit
Not applicable
Tanzanian
MPESa
Refugee
Neighbour
Bank
Microfinance
Family
Boss
Friends
No access to any credit
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
No. of respondents
Figure 11 – Refugee and Tanzanian access to various forms of credit
The inability of the vast majority of the refugee population to access any form of credit, formal or
otherwise places them in a very perilous state. As for the most part the rely solely on their labour to
generate income, any disruption to this source such as sickness can result in the refugees becoming
destitute very quickly as they have no support network to assist them through the crisis. One
refugees explained what happens when they get sick:
This is before God as my witness, my children will stay here, don’t go to school that day, we probably
won’t eat, the electricity can go off for a week. (R03, Interview)
Political Capital
(a) Right to the City
The Right to the City was a concept originally constructed by Henri Lefebvre in his 1968 book Le
Droit á la Ville, which examined urban dwellers freedom and access to urban life. Marcuse (2009),
describes Lefebvre’s right to the city as “a cry and a demand, a cry out of necessity and a demand for
something more” (pg 190), stating that the demand of the Right to the City comes “from the directly
oppressed, the aspiration from the alienated” (191). In order to explore the urban populations of
Dar es Salaam within the context of the Right to the City, the meaning of the phrase must first be
clarified.
The idea has become quite amorphous, in some cases co-opted and expropriated by various groups
claiming that it espouses their claims to the city, and Marcuse (2014) identifies no less than 6
different readings of Lefebvre’s original work, each with quite diverse interpretations. Lefebvre’s
own reading, the author would contend, remains the most pivotal. As mentioned above, Marcuse
notes that Lefebvre’s own thoughts on the right to the city are more radical than others
interpretations, they are a call for a revolution of the urban. However Marcuse decries the use of the
term ‘right’ as the concept is “not a Right in the sense of a legal claim enforceable through the
judicial system, but a moral right, an appeal to the highest of human values” (Marcuse, 2014 pg 5).
For the remainder of the discussion the Right to the City will focus on the ‘strategic reading’ of
16
Lefebvre’s work, as noted by Marcuse (2014). The strategic reading identifies with groups which are
the underprivileged and suffering in urban society, prohibited economically or socially from real
inclusion in the City. They are simply seeking ‘to obtain the benefits of existing city life from which
they have been excluded” (Marcuse, 2014 pg 6). In considering the ‘right’ of the refugees and
Tanzanian urban slum dwellers within this context as set out above, one must also consider another
salient point highlighted by Purcell (2013) which is that “in almost all its forms the right to the city is
understood to be a struggle to augment the rights of urban inhabitants against the property rights of
owners”.
Arguably the most basic of rights is the right to existence itself, and it is one which is currently being
denied to the urban refugees, at least within the confines of the legal context and the cityscape. As
can be seen from Figure 12, almost 47% of the refugees interviewed had acquired peasant permits,
while the remainder were in various states of precariousness regarding their refugee status, with
30% having no documentation of any description. Even those with a peasant permit (a permit for
temporary farm labourers and only available to Congolese applicants) were in an unstable position
as the permits had recently been recalled by the Government and replaced with receipts. So many
of the Congolese were anticipating that in the future no further permits would be issued to them,
which would be a major step back and the removal of arguably their most valuable asset in Dar es
Salaam:
“The peasant permits were very very helpful because before we had a terrible fear living without any
permit, now when we got those permits we are free, we can do the things that we want to do,
freely” - Refugee Focus Group
No. of respondents
Legal Status of Refugees
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Status
Figure 12 – Legal status of Refugees
Conclusion
The livelihood strategies adopted by the refugee population of Dar es Salaam acknowledges the
complexities of managing complex asset portfolios, but their choices are clearly limited in
comparison to their Tanzanian counterparts, who are themselves vulnerable – “Those with more
assets tend to have a greater range of options and an ability to switch between multiple strategies
to secure their livelihoods” (DFID, 1999, pg 6). Refugees’ ability to accumulate the five main assets
as noted by Moser (1998) is seriously curtailed by their lack of another asset: political capital, and as
Chambers and Conway (1991) notes, the problem is not just of assets but entitlements - their lack
17
of rights means that the assets they do have, such as labour and education can, and indeed are,
being significantly eroded, while those assets which they aspire to accumulate (such as housing) will
likely never be realised due to government policies which do not recognise them as having a Right
to the City.
The insecurity of their lives and their dependence on often one single asset, their labour, to survive
means than any shocks or negative occurrences has an extremely negative effect on their ability to
survive let alone prosper. Their vulnerability is deep seated and inter – generational, as their lack of
political capital is often passed on to their children, who will also be excluded from accessing many
of the rights of their Tanzanian neighbours. The important linkage to make from this is the
connection between the different levels of power; how asset vulnerability at the household level
can have an impact on the asset accumulation policy at the state level and vice versa. Legitimising
the existence of the urban refugee population in the city is the first step which is required to allow
them to begin accumulating assets. Without the regularizing of their status, it will be extremely
difficult for refugees to develop any of the other main assets discussed. The recent survey
undertaken by the Government suggests that it may now be considering a change to the refugee
policy, and hopefully any amendments will take into consideration the very real concerns and needs
of the urban refugees of Dar es Salaam.
18
References
Appadurai, A. (2004) The Capacity to Aspire: Culture and the Terms of Recognition. In Culture and
Public Action, (eds) Vijayendra Rao, V. and Walton, M. pp. 59 – 85. Stanford University Press.
Arun, S., Annim, S. K. and Arun, T. (2013)‘Overcoming Household Shocks: Do Asset-Accumulation
Strategies Matter? Review of Social Economy, 71(3) pp. 281–305.
Asylum Access Tanzania (AATZ) (2011) No Place Called Home – A report on Urban Refugees Living in
Dar es Salaam. Asylum Access: Dar es Salaam.
Chambers, R. (1995) Poverty and livelihoods: whose reality counts? Environment and urbanization,
7(1) pp. 173–204.
Chambers, R. and Conway, G. (1991) Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st
century. Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: Institute for Development Studies.
Chandler, C. Jones, C., Boniface, G., Juma, K., Reyburn, H. and Whittey, C. (2008) Guidelines and
mindlines: why do clinical staff over-diagnose malaria in Tanzania? A qualitative study. Malaria
Journal 7 (53).
Conway, T., Moser, C., Norton, A. and Farrington, J. (2002) Rights and livelihoods approaches:
exploring policy dimensions. Overseas Development Institute.
Cook, S. (2007) Addressing Vulnerability through Asset Building and Social Protection, in Reducing
Global Poverty: The Case for Asset Accumulation (ed) Moser, C. Washington, D.C: Brookings
Institution, U.S.
Crisp, J., Morris, T. and Refstie, H. (2012) Displacement in urban areas: new challenges, new
partnerships. Disasters, 36 (S1), S23–S42.
Davies, S. (1993) Are coping strategies a cop out? Institute of Development Studies Bulletin 24(4), 60
– 72
Davies, A. and Jacobsen, K. (2010) Profiling urban IDPs. Forced Migration Review, 34 (February), 13 –
15.
DFID (Department for International Development) (1999) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheet.
Department for International Development: London.
Edwards, A. (2010) “Legitimate” protection spaces: UNHCR’s 2009 policy. Forced Migration Review,
35 (February), 48 – 49.
Ford Foundation (2004) Building Assets to Reduce Poverty and Injustice. New York.
Haysom, S, (2013) Sanctuary in the Ciry? Urban displacement and vulnerability, Final Report.
Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute: London
Jacobsen, K. (2006) Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Urban Areas: A Livelihoods Perspective. Journal
of Refugee Studies, 19(3) pp. 273–286.
Lefebvre, H. (1968) Le droit à la ville. Anthopos, Paris.
Marcuse, P. (2014) Reading the Right to the City. City 18 (1), 4 – 9.
Metcalfe, V., Pavanelloa, S. and Prafulla, M. (2011) Sanctuary in the city? Urban displacement and
19
vulnerability in Nairobi. Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute: London
Milner, J. (2009) Refugees, the State and the Politics of Asylum in Africa. Palgrave Macmillan:
Basingstoke.
Mitlin, D. (2003) Addressing urban poverty through strengthening assets. Habitat International,
27(3) pp. 393–406.
Moser, C. (2006) Asset-Based Approaches to Poverty Reduction in a Globalized Context. Rochester,
NY: Social Science Research Network.
Moser, C. (2012) A transnational asset accumulation framework for researching Latin American
migration." In Cross Border Migration among Latin Americans, (ed). McIlwaine, C.
Moser, C. (2005) Rights, Power and Poverty Reduction. In Power, rights and poverty: concepts and
connections (ed) Alsop, R. World Bank Publications and DFID.
Moser, C. (ed) (2007) Reducing Global Poverty: The Case for Asset Accumulation. Washington, D.C:
Brookings Institution, U.S.
Moser, C. and Norton, A. (2001) To claim our rights: livelihood security, human rights and
sustainable development. London: Overseas Development Institute.
Moser, C. (1998) The asset vulnerability framework: Reassessing urban poverty reduction strategies.
World Development, 26(1) pp. 1–19.
Parizeau, K. (2015). When Assets are Vulnerabilities: An Assessment of Informal Recyclers’
Livelihood Strategies in Buenos Aires, Argentina. World Development 67, pp. 161–173.
Pantuliano, S., Metcalfe, V., Haysom, S., Davey, E. (2012) Urban vulnerability and displacement: a
review of current issues. Disasters, 36(S1), S1–S22.
Pavanello, S., Elhawary, S. and Pantuliano, S. (2010) Hidden and exposed: Urban refugees in Nairobi,
Kenya. Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute: London.
Purcell, M. (2002) Excavating Lefebvre: The right to the city and its urban politics of the inhabitant.
GeoJournal, 58 (2-3), 99–108.
Wilson, R.A. (1997) Human rights, culture and context. Pluto Press: London.
World Bank (2015) Prevalence of HIV, total (% of population 15 – 49) [Online] Available at
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.DYN.AIDS.ZS/countries/TZ-ZF-XM?display=graph (Accessed
on 16 September 2015).
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (2015) More people move to urban areas as Tanzanian
population gallops [Online] Available at
http://countryoffice.unfpa.org/tanzania/2013/04/19/6599/more_people_move_to_urban_areas_as
_tanzanian_population_gallops/ (Accessed on 1st September 2015)
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) (1997) UNHCR Comprehensive Policy on
Urban Refugees, UNHCR: Geneva.
UNHCR (2009) UNHCR policy on refugee protection and solutions in urban areas, UNHCR: Geneva.
UNHCR (2015a) Refugees Magazine Issue 110 (Crisis in the Great Lakes) - Cover Story: Heart of
Darkness [Online] Available at http://www.unhcr.org/3b6925384.html (Accessed on 10th August
20
2015)
UNHCR (2015b) Burundi Situation – Displacement of Burundians into neighboring countries, [Online]
Available at http://data.unhcr.org/burundi/download.php?id=199 (Accessed on 12 July 2015)
UNHCR (2009) UNHCR Policy on Alternative to Camps, UNHCR: Geneva
UNHCR (2012) The Implementation of UNHCR’s Policy on Refugee Protection and Solutions in Urban
Areas Global Survey – 2012, UNHCR: Geneva
UNHCR (2011) Promoting Livelihoods and Self – Reliance Operational Guidance on Refugee
Protection and Solutions in Urban Areas, UNHCR: Geneva
United States Department of State (USDS) (2012) Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for
2011 – Tanzania. [Online]. Available at: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/186460.pdf
(Accessed: 1 September 2013).
URT (2013) 2012 Population and Housing Census. National Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Finance,
Dar es Salaam.
USAID (2014) President’s Malaria Initiative Tanzania Malaria Operation Plan FY 2014. [Online].
Available at http://www.pmi.gov/docs/default-source/default-document-library/malariaoperational-plans/fy14/tanzania_mop_fy14.pdf?sfvrsn=12 9 (Accessed 20 September 2015)
21